Black, brown, yellow, and left: radical activism in Los Angeles 9780520245204, 9780520938892, 9780520245198

Citation preview

BLACK, BROWN, YELLOW, AND LEFT

AMERICAN CROSSROADS

Edited by Earl Lewis, George Lipsitz, Peggy Pascoe, George Sanchez, and Dana Takagi 1. Border Matters: Remapping American Cultural Studies, by José David Saldivar 2. The White Scourge: Mexicans, Blacks, and Poor Whites in Texas Cotton Culture, by Neil Foley

3. Indians in the Making: Ethnic Relations and Indian Identities around Puget Sound, by Alexandra Harmon 4. Aztlan and Viet Nam: Chicano and Chicana Experiences of the War, edited by George Mariscal 9. Immigration and the Political Economy of Home: West Indian Brooklyn and American Indian Minneapolis, 1945-1992, by Rachel Buff 6. Epic Encounters: Culture, Media, and U.S. Interests in the Middle East since 1945, by Melani McAlister 7. Contagious Divides: Epidemics and Race in San Francisco's Chinatown, by Nayan Shah 8. Japanese American Celebration and Conflict: A History of Ethnic Identity and Festival, 1934-1990, by Lon Kurashige 9. American Sensations: Class, Empire, and the Production of Popular Culture, by Shelley Streeby 10. Colored White: Transcending the Racial Past, by David R. Roediger 11. Reproducing Empire: Race, Sex, Science, and U.S. Imperialism in Puerto Rico, by Laura Briggs 12. meXicana Encounters: The Making of Social Identities on the Borderlands, by Rosa Linda Fregoso 13. Popular Culture in the Age of White Flight: Fear and Fantasy in Suburban Los Angeles, by Eric Avila

14. Ties That Bind: The Story of an Afro-Cherokee Family in Slavery and Freedom, by Tiya Miles

15. Cultural Moves: African Americans and the Politics of Representation, by Herman S. Gray 16. Emancipation Betrayed: The Hidden History of Black Organizing and White Violence in Florida from Reconstruction to the Bloody Election of 1920, by Paul Ortiz

17. Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America, by Alexandra Stern 18. Audiotopia: Music, Race, and America, by Josh Kun 19. Black, Brown, Yellow, and Left: Radical Activism in Los Angeles, by Laura Pulido

Black, Brown, Yellow, and Left RADICAL ACTIVISM IN LOS ANGELES

LAURA PULIDO

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS Berkeley Los Angeles London

University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England © 2006 by The Regents of the University of California Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Pulido, Laura. Black, brown, yellow, and left : radical activism in Southern California / Laura Pulido.

p. em. —{American crossroads ; 19) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-520-24519-9 (cloth : alk. paper) —ISBN 0-520-24520-2 (pbk. : alk. paper)

1. Radicalism— California—Los Angles—History— oth century. 2. Right and left (Political science) 3. African Americans— California— Los Angeles—Politics and government—2oth century. 4. Mexican Americans —California—Los Angeles— Politics and government— 2oth century. 5. Japanese Americans—California— Los Angeles — Politics and government—2zoth century. I. Title. II. Series. HN79.C23A-Z.R368 2006

305.8'009794'909047—de22 2005002624 Manufactured in the United States of America

14 13 12 11 10 og 08 07 06

10-9: 2 3G. ha

Printed on Ecobook 50 containing a minimum 50% post-consumer waste, processed chlorine free. The balance contains virgin pulp, including 25% Forest Stewardship Council Certified for no old growth tree cutting, processed either TCF or ECF. The sheet is acid-free and meets the minimum requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48—1992 (R 1997) (Permanence of Paper). ®

This book is for Mike

The publisher gratefully acknowledges the generous contribution to this book provided by the Lisa See Fund in Southern California History.

Contents

List of Illustrations ix List of Tables xi Acknowledgments xiii Introduction 1 PART I. RACE, CLASS, AND ACTIVISM

1. Race and Political Activism 15 2. Differential Racialization in Southern California 34

3. The Politicization of the Third World Left 59 PART Il. THE THIRD WORLD LEFT 4. Serving the People and Vanguard Politics: The Formation

of the Third World Left in Los Angeles 89

5. Ideologies of Nation, Class, and Race in the Third World Left 123

World Left 153

6. The Politics of Solidarity: Interethnic Relations in the Third

Notes 239 Index 333

¢. Patriarchy and Revolution: Gender Relations in the Third World Left 180

8. The Third World Left Today and Contemporary Activism 215

Selected Bibliography 299

Blank Page

Illustrations

FIGURES

1950-1977 54

1. Median family income by racial/ethnic group, Los Angeles,

Po Ad DD

2. Median housing price by racial/ethnic group, Los Angeles,

3. Anti-Vietnam War flier 79 4. Survival programs of the Southern California chapter

of the Black Panther Party 98 5. The importance of self-defense to the Black Panther Party 99 6. List of CASA’s demands 121 7. Mexicans and Chicanos are one people 127

8. CASA’s logo 130 g. The Panthers and the “pigs” 150 1o. Asian American contingent at a march against deportations,

East Los Angeles, summer 1976 155

11. People power 157 12. Third World revolutionaries 159 13. Roy Brown concert flier 178

14. Revolutionary Black women 189 15. Striking Mexican American women workers 197

16. Revolutionary Asian woman 209

17. Asian American women activists 210 ix

x / ILLUSTRATIONS

MAPS

1. Distribution of ethnic groups in Los Angeles County, 1970 16

2. Major shifts in ethnic populations, 1940-1960 37

Tables

1. Population increase in Los Angeles County, 1920-1970 35 2. Los Angeles County population by race/ethnicity, 1970 42

Los Angeles, 1970 46

3. Manufacturing employment by racial/ethnic group,

4. Occupations of residents of East Los Angeles, 1965 47 5. Occupations of residents of South Los Angeles, 1965 48 6. Percent of families below poverty line for selected

South Los Angeles communities, 1965 49

7. Japanese American employment by industry, Los Angeles,1960 = 511

8. Black Panther platform and program, October 1966 97

ten-point programs 168

g. Comparison of selected elements of the 1966 and 1972

10. Partial list of contemporary Los Angeles organizations

with links to the Third World Left 2A9

and poverty, 2000 220

11. Los Angeles County population by race/ethnicity

xi

Blank Page

Acknowledgments

[ have benefited from the wisdom, experience, and generosity of many people in writing this book. This project required me to go beyond the familiar territory of Chicana/o and Latina/o studies, which was not always easy. This process was greatly facilitated, however, by people like Tony Osumi and Jenni Kuida, who know most politically active Japanese Americans in Los Angeles, as well as by Ruthie and Craig Gilmore, who listened to my ram-

blings about this project for years, while sharing their extensive library, ideas, and contacts, and who provided a base for fieldwork in Northern California. Special thanks also to Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo, Lisa Duran, and Jim Lee, who, besides reading portions of the manuscript, have listened

and supported me through the various trials and tribulations it entailed. Numerous individuals have also contributed their particular expertise or resources to this project. Special thanks to the Yamashita-Oliveras family for providing housing in Northern California; Craig Gilmore and my mom for being wonderful baby-sitters; Clyde Woods for his encouragement and encyclopedic knowledge of the civil rights movement and Black studies in general; Steven Murashige for graphic assistance; Cynthia Cuza, Lian Hurst Mann, Mark and Kathy Masaoka, and Merilynne Quon for sharing documents; Diane Fujino, Dan Hosang, Lon Kurashige and his Asian American History seminar, John Laslett, George Lipsitz, Manuel Pastor, Merilynne Quon, Dana Tagaki, Howard Winant, and two anonymous reviewers for reading and commenting on the manuscript or portions of it; Gloria Gonzalez-Lopez for intro-

ducing me to the literature on Chicana sexuality; Shirley Hune for her insights on gender and Asian American women; Jennifer Wolch for endless urban citations; Lisa Lowe, Jorge Mariscal, Betita Martinez, and Melissa Gilbert for their early encouragement of this project; and Miriam Ching Louie for generously allowing me to borrow the title of her paper for this book. xiii

xiv / ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding for this project was provided by the Southern California Studies Center at the University of Southern California (USC), for which I thank my colleague Michael Dear. I am extremely grateful for a fellowship from the Institute of American Cultures and the Cesar Chavez Research Center at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), which provided a supportive environment in which I was able to write the first manuscript draft. Many thanks also to USC’s Program in American Studies and Ethnicity, which provided me with funding for a research assistant, as well as to the Geography Department, which has been a supportive academic home, and especially to that department’s amazing Billie Shotlow. I would also like to

acknowledge the significant contributions of the following people who

worked as research assistants on this project: Angel Gomez, Donna Houston, Hallie Krinski, Veronica Marin, Nate Sessoms, and Adrianne Stringer. These students tracked down materials, transcribed lengthy interviews, imposed order on an unruly bibliography and endnotes, and offered their insights and ideas. Research for this project was conducted at various libraries and collections across California. The starting place for my research was the Southern California Library. Many thanks to the terrific people at the library for their assistance with this project. | would also like to acknowledge and thank the librarians of UCLA’s Special Collections, the USC, Special Collections of Stanford University, and Special Collections of the Bancroft Library. In addition, the various ethnic studies libraries at UCLA proved invaluable, espe-

cially the American Indian Studies Center Library, the Asian American Studies Reading Room, and the Chicano Studies Library. The Los Angeles Public Library was also quite useful, especially the East Los Angeles branch.

I am especially indebted to those people who allowed me to interview them or otherwise shared their knowledge, experiences, and materials of the Third World Left with me: Kumasi Aguilar, Karen Bass, Luisa Crespo, Cynthia Cuza, Maria Elena Durazo, Roland Freeman, Ronald Freeman, Warren Furutani, Bill Gallegos, Juan Jose Gutierrez, Steve Holguin, Billy X Jennings, Glenn Kitayama, Sid Lamelle, Barry and Paula Litt, Eric Mann,

Lian Hurst Mann, Kathy Masaoka, Mark Masaoka, Nobuko Miyamato, David Monkawa, Carlos Montes, Mohammed MuBarak, Mike Murase, Mo

Nishida, Nelson Peery, Merilynne Quon, Margarita Ramirez, Antonio Rodriguez, Talibah Shakir, Victor Shibata, Gerry Silva, Evelyn Soriano, Miguel Tinker-Salas, Amy Uyematsu, Ron Wilkins, Kent Wong, Long John Ali Yahya, Evelyn Yoshimura, Michael Zinzun, and others who requested anonymity. I know that not everyone will agree with my interpretation, but | hope that I have managed to represent their stories and experiences with

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS / xv

the care and respect they deserve. Special thanks to those who generously gave permission for use of their materials, including Emory Douglas, Mike Murase, Mary Kao, Antonio Rodriguez, Roy Nakano, James Allen, Eugene Turner, the Russell Sage Foundation, Stanford Special Collections, UCLA Special Collections, the Los Angeles Times, and the Southern California Library. Also, my deep appreciation to the several unknown artists whose work I have used. Although I did my best to identify the artists/owners of anonymous works, I did not always succeed and would welcome the opportunity to hear from those individuals whose work appears on these pages. And finally, un mil gracias to Mike Murashige and mi hijo Amani. Mike knows what this project has meant to me and has been supportive from the beginning. I would like to unequivocally state that many of the ideas in this book came from him, and, as often happens with couples, it is sometimes hard to tell where one person’s ideas end and another’s start. Besides benefiting from his remarkable mind, this book has been strengthened by his love, dedication, and commitment. I, of course, remain responsible for all shortcomings. As for Amani, he fortunately was spared most of the grief associated with a book project, but he, more than anyone else, has helped me keep it in perspective.

Blank Page

Introduction

This book compares the historical experiences of African American, Japanese American, and Chicana/o activists who were part of the Third World Left in

Los Angeles from 1968 to 1978.' The idea for this project grew out of my general curiosity with the sixties, as well as my desire to understand the generation of activists who preceded me. Although I was only a child during the late sixties, I knew that this period was key to understanding contemporary politics, particularly in communities of color. How and why did the seemingly revolutionary politics of the sixties and seventies falter, and what were the consequences for those struggling to challenge capitalism and racism?

Particularly important to my thinking was my involvement with the Labor/Community Strategy Center in Los Angeles, which, in the 1980s, was seeking to create a multiracial left by organizing in low-income communities of color. During my time with the Strategy Center, I learned the importance of organizing beyond the Chicana/o community and the need for an explicit class analysis.* I came to appreciate how class consciousness could potentially bring various racial/ethnic groups together and contribute to a larger movement for social and economic justice. Moreover, I realized that although multiracial organizing was new to me, many people had done this sort of work before, and in fact the Strategy’s Center project drew upon those experiences. Previous generations of activists had struggled with the tensions inherent in building an antiracist and anticapitalist movement, and | realized that a close examination of these efforts might yield important insights that would cast new light on contemporary efforts—an especially relevant task given the explosion of progressive and social justice activism that characterized turn-of-the-century Los Angeles.’ As I began exploring this subject, I saw that the left of color had a rich and deep history in Los 4

2 / INTRODUCTION

Angeles. It included, for example, Japanese American participation in the

1930s Communist Party, the visionary work of Charlotta Bass and the California Eagle, and El Congreso de Pueblos de Habla Espafiola, led by Bert Corona and Luisa Moreno.’ Building upon this base, I sought to learn more about the sixties and seventies, but, despite picking up bits and pieces about organizations like El Centro de Accion Social y Aut6nomo/the Center for Autonomous Social Action (CASA), East Wind, the August Twentyninth Movement, the California Communist League, and I Wor Kuen, with the exception of the Black Panther Party (BPP) I could find little written on the subject. I struggled to piece together what scattered evidence and historical clues I could gather until I finally had a breakthrough. In 1995 service workers on my campus, the University of Southern California, were at odds with the administration over the university’s subcontracting policies, and I became

involved with the workers and their unions (Justice for Janitors and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Local 11). Subsequently, I began researching the political backgrounds of union members and statf— imagining that, perhaps, Central American workers with revolutionary backgrounds were contributing to the rapidly changing labor politics of Los Angeles.’ Although I did not find much evidence for my “migrating militancy” theory, I did find a group of older organizers who had become politicized through the Third World Left, and thus an entry into this book.

RACE, CLASS, AND THE SIXTIES AND SEVENTIES Since my initial curiosity, the literature on the radical and revolutionary movements of the sixties and seventies has grown tremendously. One of its most popular genres is the political memoir or biography written by a leading activist.° Books in this genre paint an intimate picture of how and why certain individuals became politicized, as well as the structure and culture of various organizations and movements. But, though rich in detail, they are

limited by being written from individual perspectives. Another rapidly expanding genre is the sociological or historical study of the activism of a particular ethnic group.’ Together, these literatures have greatly enhanced our understanding of this era, but they have presented a somewhat skewed picture of radical politics in the sixties and seventies. One problem is that many chroniclers of the New Left have defined it as a largely white event. The writer Elizabeth Martinez has dubbed this phenomenon “that old white (male) magic.”* At the same time, though ethnic

studies scholars have produced an impressive literature on the antiracist

INTRODUCTION / 3

and nationalist struggles that emerged in communities of color, only a handful have seriously studied the left of color. Most have focused on the larger

movements centered on questions of identity, community empowerment, antiracism, and culture. This focus is understandable because of the small size of the Third World Left relative to the larger nationalist movements, but I would also argue that it reflects an ambivalence, at best, toward anticapitalism. The result of these twin practices has been the almost complete erasure of the existence of a Third World Left, or a left of color, in the United States during this period. The primary exception is, of course, the BPP. The BPP is routinely mentioned in almost all accounts of the New Left and fig-

ures prominently in the literature on Black Power as well as that of other ethnic struggles. The problem with this emphasis, however, is that the BPP becomes a stand-in for the entire Third World Left and is viewed in isolation from its relationships with other Third World Leftist groups, thus obscuring the larger movement.’ The prominence of the BPP indicates another problem: most studies of the Third World Left are rooted in one particular racial/ethnic group, such as African Americans or Asian Americans. This is understandable insofar as

many of the scholars studying these movements tend to come from those communities themselves and to be based in specific disciplines, such as American Indian or Chicana/o studies. While there is still much to learn about all ethnic groups in the United States, and reclaiming buried histories is an urgent task, a multiethnic approach enables us to see the interaction among various racial/ethnic groups and their influences on each other."” Indeed, the fact that the Third World Left was not just a loose collection of revolutionary nationalists and Marxist-Leninists but a network of organizations that drew on each other’s ideas led me to pursue a comparative study. I hope that by carefully examining the similarities and differences between these various activists and organizations, as well as the degree of influence and interaction between them, I can offer a new perspective on the movement. Because this project evolved from a historical study into a comparative analysis, I had to grapple with a challenging set of theoretical issues around race, class, difference, and place. How would I compare the experiences of different racial/ethnic groups? What might the similarities and differences

I found actually mean in terms of larger racial and economic processes? Fortunately, I was able to draw on the work of others who have forged a path

in comparative and interethnic studies, including Claire Jean Kim, Susan Koshy, Linda Gordon, Neil Foley, Tomas Almaguer, Evelyn Nakano-Glenn, Nicholas De Genova, and Ana Ramos-Zayas. These scholars not only have

4 / INTRODUCTION

helped clarify how and why various racial/ethnic groups experience distinct

forms of racism but also have shown how racialization is a relational process: that is, how the status and meanings associated with one group are contingent upon those of another.'’ Hence the idea of Asian Americans as

“model minorities” exists only in relation to “less than model” Black, Latina/o, and American Indian minorities. The concept of differential racial-

ization, which denotes that various racial/ethnic groups are racialized in unique ways and have distinct experiences of racism, is key to this discussion. Particular racial/ethnic groups are associated with particular sets of meanings and economic opportunities, or lack thereof, and these in turn are influenced by groups’ history, culture, and national racial narratives and by the regional economy. I emphasize regions because although all of the United States is informed by a national racial narrative, class structures and racial divisions of labor take shape and racial hierarchies are experienced at the regional and local levels. Because the United States is so large and diverse, it is primarily at the regional level that nuanced and meaningful comparison must take place. Although discussions of race in the United States are still largely confined to a Black/white framework, the scholarship emerging trom American Indian, Asian American, and Chicana/o and Latina/o studies has challenged this notion, with profound implications for how we think about race.’* A crucial idea to emerge from these debates is the concept of racial hierarchies. Complex racial hierarchies are formed when multiple racially subordinated populations occupy a range of social positions. The precise configuration of

any racial hierarchy will depend upon differential racialization, which in turn affects the regional economy, as seen, for example, in the racialized nature of labor markets. Though a growing number of scholars have examined complex racial hierarchies in detail, and though it is well known that resistance varies according to the nature of oppression, few have examined how differential racialization may contribute to distinct forms of revolutionary activism. Accordingly, one of the goals of this book is to examine this relationship in detail. | argue that differential racialization influences a racial/ethnic group’s class position and that both of these factors then shape the local racial hierarchy. Thus differential racialization and class positioning have contributed to the distinct radical politics articulated by various leftists of color.

Because of my initial interest in the history of radical activism in Los Angeles, I did not always appreciate that the city also offers an unparalleled opportunity to study complex racial hierarchies. Not only does the Los Angeles metropolitan region defy the Black/white binary, but also the long

INTRODUCTION / 5

histories of multiple racial/ethnic groups in the city provide a key to under-

standing the evolution of racial hierarchies over time and the relational nature of differential racialization.'’ For instance, how did Asian Americans (primarily Japanese and Chinese) rise from the bottom of the racial hierarchy in the early twentieth century to a much higher position? And equally important, who took their place? Los Angeles is one of the few metropoli-

tan regions that has long been home to a diverse population of Asian Americans, American Indians, Latinas/os, and whites, and it thus offers an ideal setting to study differential racialization, racial hierarchies, and political activism.

THE THIRD WORLD LEFT IN LOS ANGELES I define the Third World Left as organizations that explicitly identified as revolutionary nationalist, Marxist, Leninist, or Maoist and had a membership of at least half people of color. Having arrived at this definition, I soon

confronted a bewildering array of organizations, such as the October League, Workers’ Viewpoint Organization, the Socialist Workers Party, and the California Communist League. To make this project manageable, I narrowed my study to one organization per racial/ethnic group. Accordingly, this book focuses on the following organizations: for African Americans, the BPP; for Asian Americans, East Wind; and for Chicanas/os, CASA. To be

sure, in making these decisions I risked generalizing about an entire racial/ethnic group of activists on the basis of a single organization that, arguably, could have been an anomaly. In addition, some readers might wish

that I had chosen other organizations—say, an example of Chicana/o activism less well known or more multinational than CASA. But as any scholar knows, difficult choices have to be made based on the availability of

materials, accessibility, comparability, and significance—in this case, a group’s significance to the Los Angeles region.

I had originally intended to include American Indians in this study as well. But as I began sifting through the archival material, I learned that while there was indeed a great deal of American Indian activism—not surprising, given that Los Angeles has the largest urban Indian population in the United States—there was little evidence of left activity in the area. While this discovery was initially surprising, an explanation began to emerge. Not only did American Indians draw on a somewhat different set of ideologies than other Third World activists, but also the most radical orga-

nizing occurred in rural areas. This distinctive geographical pattern was partly a function of American Indians’ unique engagement with national-

6 / INTRODUCTION

ism. During the sixties and seventies, leftist ideology conceived of racial/ethnic minorities as “oppressed nationalities.” Thus, although both Chicanas/os and African Americans were categorized as distinct nations, the nationalist dimension of American Indians’ struggles was far more immediate and concrete, as they focused on specific territorial demands and historic land claims.'* Accordingly, the geographic focus of more radical Indian activism was reservations and rural lands. Reservations became key sites of contestation, and while American Indians’ struggles were certainly carried

out in the cities, including Denver and San Francisco, they did not loom large in the everyday activities of the Los Angeles left. Instead, Third World

activists operating in Los Angeles were more likely to visit and support American Indians in rural areas.'” For example, at one point East Wind sent a delegation of approximately twenty people to Wounded Knee, and the Black Panthers regularly hosted American Indian Movement activists when they came to town. Because no comparable American Indian group was based in Los Angeles, I decided not to include them in this study. The BPP is the most well known of the groups I investigated. At first, I hesitated to include it because there is already a burgeoning literature on the party. However, the more I| delved into its history, the more I realized that I could not ignore it. Whether organizations patterned themselves after the BPP or not, the party created the political space and inspiration for other

activists of color to pursue more militant and radical forms of political action. The BPP was a revolutionary nationalist organization created in Oakland, California, in 1966. The Southern California chapter was established in 1968 by Alprentice “Bunchy” Carter. Like the larger history of the sixties, representations of the BPP are often polarized: mainstream society has typically depicted the Panthers as gun-toting thugs, whereas lefties and

liberals have often romanticized them as revolutionaries. The reality is inevitably more messy, and there is, thankfully, a growing body of literature that portrays this complexity.'° The BPP was significant in that it was the most prominent organization of the era to embrace self-defense, but it also developed a remarkable set of “serve the people” or “survival” programs. I

argue that these two concerns, self-defense and community service, emanated from the distinct racialization of African Americans and their particular class and racial position in U.S. cities during the 1960s and 1970s. Not only were urban Blacks an impoverished population in need of basic resources, but also, as “the Other” upon which whiteness was based, they were at the bottom of Los Angeles’s racial hierarchy and represented an ever-present threat to a system of white privilege, requiring constant containment by the police.

INTRODUCTION / 7

The Chicana/o group I examined, CASA, was a Marxist-Leninist organization formed in 1972 that focused on immigrant workers. Its political ideology can best be summarized by its slogan Sin fronteras (without borders), which signifies its understanding of the Chicana/o and Mexicana/o working class as one. CASA was a vanguard group that sought to unite the workers of the world, or at least workers of Mexican origin. It was active in challenging the Bakke decision’ and, most important, attempted to effect policy changes toward immigrant workers. When CASA was formed, many Chicana/o organizations, including the United Farm Workers, viewed immigrant laborers as a problem rather than as workers to be organized. CASA

contributed a great deal toward changing that position. I argue that Chicana/o leftists’ preoccupation with questions of labor organizing and immigration reflected Chicanas/os’ intermediate racial position as a “problem minority.” Their racial status and particular historical experiences cemented their position as low-wage workers in the region and all that such a position entails.'° Thus their ambivalent racial identity facilitated their incorporation into the formal economy, but only in a subordinated status. Inevitably, when I tell people about this project, | am asked, “Are you studying the Brown Berets?” The Brown Berets, basically fashioning itself after the BPP, was active at roughly the same time and looms large in the Chicana/o imagination. I did not include it because, while it was radical, it was not left. In fact, the leader of the Berets, David Sanchez, was a strident anticommunist and espoused a much more nationalist politics. The Berets had members who openly embraced leftist ideologies, but the organization as a whole did not.’” The distinction between nationalists and revolutionary nationalists is an important one that will be discussed at length in chapter 5. The final group that I consider is East Wind, a Japanese American collective that began in Los Angeles in 1972. Initially composed of revolutionary nationalists, it later became Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. Activists focused on politicizing the larger Japanese American population by doing community work and organizing. Although its roots were in study groups, community service, and numerous collectives, East Wind was significantly influenced by the BPP. East Wind became a highly disciplined organization that strongly emphasized serving the people by engaging in local struggles around drug abuse, worker issues, community mental health, and the redevelopment of

Little Tokyo, to name but a few. Although relatively few, East Wind and other Japanese American leftists made significant contributions, as seen in their early organizing around the movement for redress and reparations. East Wind activists, like activists in the larger Asian American movement, concentrated on issues of identity, community service, and solidarity work,

8 / INTRODUCTION

concerns that I believe reflect their mixed economic position and their status as a “middle minority.”

I focused on Japanese Americans, since they were the largest Asian American population in Los Angeles County in the late sixties and early seventies.” To be sure, we already know far more about Japanese Americans than about other groups, such as Filipinas/os or Vietnamese Americans, in

the diverse Asian/Pacitic Islander population because many Japanese Americans have become successful writers and academicians and because they have simply been around longer to tell their stories. Moreover, in light

of post-1965 immigration, Japanese Americans are rapidly becoming numerically insignificant in Southern California. These points underscore the need for more research on other Asian/Pacific Islander groups. For my study, however, | felt it was crucial to include Japanese Americans because not to do so would preclude a thorough interrogation of the racial dynamics of the time: the Nikkei*! were a central part of the Los Angeles racial hierarchy in the 1960s and 1970s, owing to both their size and their tenure in the region. A ROAD MAP Part 1 of this book provides a theoretical and historical context for understanding the Third World Left. Chapter 1 is primarily theoretical and discusses differential racialization, racial hierarchies, and political activism. In it | develop a framework for analyzing the racial dynamics of the Third World Left. While this chapter is important conceptually, it can be skipped by those more interested in the Third World Left itself. The second chapter describes Southern California during the 1960s and 1970s to establish the setting for the larger story. In particular, I consider the racial and economic positions of Japanese Americans, Mexican Americans, and Blacks in terms of the racial hierarchy. I take up political consciousness in chapter 3: How and

why did leftists of color became politicized? I highlight major political events that not only contributed to the prevailing political culture but also led to the rise of the Third World Left.

The second part of the book centers on the Third World Left itself. Chapter 4 introduces the key organizations—the BPP, CASA, and East Wind—and provides a brief overview of the history, structure, and demise of each. The fifth chapter compares the political ideologies and cultures of the various organizations, particularly on how the relationship between race, nation, and class was conceptualized. To portray a greater range of

political ideologies, | compare each organization to a competing group

INTRODUCTION / 9

within each respective racial/ethnic community. While revolutionary nationalism was certainly a dominant theme, it was by no means the only one at work. As Daryl Maeda has argued in the case of the BPP, these groups were simultaneously about the business of revolutionary nationalism, cultural nationalism, socialism, armed struggle, and worker and community organizing.~ Interethnic relations is the subject of the sixth chapter. Here | explore the politics of solidarity: To what extent did each organization work with other racial/ethnic groups? What do such practices reveal about each group’s political ideologies and contradictions and about the larger racial hierarchy? In the seventh chapter I explore gender relations. While all the organizations can be called patriarchal, there were important differences stemming from each group’s unique history and experience of racialization, as well as the politics they embraced. For instance, some political ideologies encouraged more egalitarian gender relations than others. Finally, in chapter 8 I consider where the activists and organizations are today, the legacy of the Third World Left, and some of the lessons to be learned.

METHODOLOGY AND CAVEATS

A word on methodology: I am not a historian. While this book is very much about the past and I have borrowed heavily from the works and tools of historians, | am a social scientist—one deeply concerned with how race and class play out in the field of political activism. Accordingly, I do not offer a definitive history of each organization; I leave that task to the professionals. I seek to understand why activists developed the politics they did and how their actions might (or might not) make sense in light of larger racial and economic structures. My secondary goal is to analyze the breadth and diver-

sity of racism. Over the years I have been frustrated by the assumptions that a person or action either is or is not racist and that there is only one kind of racism.” I hope to show that the forms and expressions of racism can vary greatly and need to be examined from multiple viewpoints. As | completed this manuscript, it occurred to me that this study should have included a predominantly white organization. As explained earlier, | did not include one precisely because of the paucity of material on the left of color. However, as the analysis progressed, I realized that inclusion of a predominantly white organization would have provided a useful contrast to the Third World groups. I trust that other scholars will pursue this line of inquiry. A final caution: the case studies that make up this work are not contemporaneous. The BPP began in 1968 in Southern California, was in decline by

10 / INTRODUCTION

1970, and managed to hang on for a few more years. In contrast, both East Wind and CASA did not begin until 1972, and both dissolved around 1978. Although only a few years apart, the BPP is closely associated with revolutionary nationalism and Black Power politics, whereas East Wind and CASA are more aligned with the sectarian politics of the New Communist movement. Despite the differences between the left politics of the late sixties and the seventies, they are fundamentally linked and represent a historical trajectory. While this disjuncture precludes easy comparisons, I try to consistently take this into account. Data for this study came from three sources: secondary accounts, archival materials, and personal interviews. With the exception of the BPP, the secondary literature on leftists of color is sparse, but a sizable body of work on the larger movements and politics of the time provided both valuable context and clues. Libraries and archives across the state contained newspapers, special collections, and ephemera related to the relevant organizations. In addition, I interviewed numerous individuals, venturing beyond members of the BPP, CASA, and East Wind. I found it enormously useful to interview activists of color in related or competing organizations as well as white activists. This gave me access to more viewpoints and deepened my appreciation of the political landscape by providing outsiders’ views on specific organizations. Needless to say, my most valuable resources were the individuals who consented to be interviewed. I am extremely grateful to all those persons who gave of their time, memories, and experiences in helping me reconstruct this period. And while I know that not everyone will agree with what I have written, I hope this book will be seen as a serious effort to better understand the Third World Left. Direct quotations from activists are not attributed to particular individ-

uals in this book because of the numerous interviewees who desired anonymity. Early drafts included both pseudonyms and actual names, but this system grew unwieldy, so I dropped all references to individuals’ names and just included brief descriptions of the sources. Only in a few cases where individuals have already made public their political past and there is some insight to be gained from revealing their identities have I disclosed names. Writing about a movement that I was not part of posed special chal-

lenges. Some people did not wish to talk with me because I was an outsider—and, worse, an academic. Tensions still existed regarding this recent history, I quickly learned, and as an outsider I did not always detect the political minefields I was walking into. On the other hand, I did not have the prejudices of an insider. Although I still might seem overly sympathetic to some readers, I have tried to be critical, while honoring my responsibility

INTRODUCTION / 44

to represent accurately what informants told me, by contextualizing their comments and pointing out contradictions. One reason for the seemingly positive slant is that the most critical individuals declined to be interviewed, not wishing to revisit their experiences or share them with me. Thus, despite my best efforts, my interviewees were somewhat self-selected. In addition, given the current political climate, many emphasized the positive aspects of

their activist experiences, knowing what was at stake and the negative nature of previous portrayals of the Third World Left. No doubt an insider would provide a different perspective, and I encouraged numerous interviewees to consider writing their memoirs. Authors choose to spend a part of their lives on projects that mean a great deal to them. I am no exception. This book addresses issues that I have thought about for decades: How do we mobilize to create a more socially just world? How do we overcome racial tensions to build a stronger movement? How can we mobilize around a specific class politics? Despite my initial fascination with the mystique of the Third World Left (partly because of its inaccessibility), any romantic notions I might have had were dispelled by my research. Though I have tried to be candid about the many problems and shortcomings of the Third World Left, my research also gave me a deep respect for the individuals who made up these organizations. In most cases they cared passionately about their communities and social justice. Besides daring to dream of a new world, they were often willing to give of their lives. While I did not always agree with their actions, | admit to admiring their conviction, and I believe that if we wish to create a different world— one free of racism, poverty, human rights abuses, and environmental degradation—we can learn a great deal from the passion and commitment of the Third World Left, albeit tempered with more wisdom, honesty, kindness, and flexibility.

Blank Page

PART |

Race, Class, and Activism

Blank Page

oNE Race and Political Activism

The experience of growing up in Los Angeles partly explains my interest in the issues of race, class, and political activism that this book addresses. Born in East Los Angeles, I lived for a number of years in San Pedro and subsequently moved to Westminster in Orange County. Throughout these various moves, one constant was riding in our station wagon with my brothers and sister while driving to visit relatives throughout the area. Throughout

the 1960s and 1970s I regularly traveled the Harbor Freeway to visit Grandpa and Tia Lola in East L.A.; the Pomona Freeway to see my aunt in Pico Rivera as well as my ninos (godparents) in Monterey Park; and the San Diego Freeway to visit my cousins in Canoga Park (see map 1). Little did I know that the history and geography of my extended family was in many ways typical of working-class Mexican Americans: with a decrease in residential segregation, as well as a strong Fordist economy, many of my relatives began leaving the greater East L.A. barrio around 1970.' Nevertheless, the maintenance of family ties was highly valued, and we managed to see some set of relatives at least once a week, usually on Sundays. The Southern California freeway system was key to maintaining this connection. Aside from the usual childhood complaints stemming from seemingly interminable car rides, including such things as being touched and looked at by one’s siblings, what I remember most was the landscape and geography of the region: eerie industrial buildings, dramatic mountains and palm trees, the downtown skyline, endless housing tracts, and of course, the racial patterns associated with them. Who lived in those vast expanses of South L.A. or the Westside, in which we knew no one? And why did our family seem to be strung out along the Pomona Freeway? It was clear to me that East L.A. was the heart of the Mexican American community, and I suspected that Watts served a similar function for Blacks, 15

46 / RACE, CLASS, AND ACTIVISM

i San Fernando if

Pacoima

San FernandoSierra AltadenaMadre Valley Canoga Park Santa Bernardino

H

\ifPasadena Freeway (\ Downtown s Alhambra ‘Los Angeles @ @ A ees |

}

\West © Los Angeles é

Sawtelle e A ittes aa e. MontéteyParkes Santa = A) SS — aH] Tokyo CO) ar Zs hens Crenshaw” @ 2, s East »Pico Rivera is I e,

I Los Angeles Pomona ==

> 8 South Central Rois Freeway es PACIFIC ‘6 Los Angeles Heights Santa Fe Springs OCEAN Pets poasteyeeerr

| y) ize Willowbrook

Si Fie Harbor , a

------ County boundary Se all Freeway Ona:

— City of Los Angeles = = ee

—— Major Freeways San Diego | oe , @ 25% Asian American Freeway || | Ung ==. ee

[9) 50% Latino SS ¥ badHill P— [-] 50% African American bach Signal \/

0EOE5 SS10= Miles 4.

San \

Map 1. Distribution of ethnic groups in Los Angeles County, 1970.

but I could not identify a comparable place for Asian Americans. In my mind, Chinatown and Little Tokyo were tourist spots with only a limited connection to contemporary Asian Americans. Such partial knowledge stemmed from intense residential segregation and a resulting lack of familiarity with either Black or Japanese people. My world was largely brown and white.

As a youngster, I struggled with being brown. Living in San Pedro, | learned early that being Mexican was far from desirable. At various times I

RACE AND POLITICAL ACTIVISM / 17

detested my brown skin, was embarrassed by the Spanish spoken in our household, and was envious of light-skinned Mexicans, wondering why | couldn't be a giiera.* My painfully limited consciousness concerning my Mexican identity was complicated by my awareness of other peoples of color. Although I did not really know any African Americans, I knew that Blacks were a devalued racial/ethnic group, and I sensed that my racial posi-

tion was somehow tied to theirs—how that worked out exactly I wasn’t sure, but I understood that what it meant to be brown in Los Angeles was somehow linked to what it meant to be Black. I vaguely recall one incident in which I came home from school crying one day. My mom, seeing my anxiety, inquired, “ M’ija, what happened?” Apparently, a girl at school, who was white, had asked if I was Black, and this had caused me great anguish. What indeed if I was Black? It was a frightening thought to a little Mexican American girl who knew she was racially problematic but sensed that things could be worse. My mom assured me that no, I wasn’t Black, but she also stressed, in her very Catholic way, that even if I were, what would be wrong with that? In contrast, I actually did know some Japanese Americans, a family down the street in San Pedro. While they were nice enough, I considered them to

be “foreign.” Several things stood out about them: their yard was landscaped in a distinctly Japanese style, they did not wear shoes in the house, and they enjoyed a cuisine that was totally unfamiliar to me. But what was significant was how I perceived them relative to me: they were foreign. And while I was uncomfortable with my Mexican background, which I equated with being both inferior and different, I had somehow absorbed the dominant reading of Asian Americans as the ultimate foreigners. Moreover, I sensed that my Japanese American neighbors occupied a distinct social position. I did not feel that they were as despised as Blacks and Mexicans, but they clearly were not on the same level as whites either. They were somewhere in between.

| share this bit of autobiography to introduce a basic premise of this book: what we know as racial/ethnic groups (I use the term racial/ethnic to emphasize that racial groups may also function as ethnic groups) can be grasped only in relation to other racial/ethnic groups. In other words, racial/ ethnic groups, the meanings attached to them, the economic positions they occupy, and the status conferred upon them can be understood only in the context of the larger racial landscape. Further, the dynamics that produce racial/ethnic groups are so profound that a grade school child living through them can discern them. Unfortunately, what most kids know social scientists, myself included, are only beginning to pay close attention to.

18 / RACE, CLASS, AND ACTIVISM

My first political awakening centered on issues of racial oppression, par-

ticularly the plight of African Americans. I certainly did not learn these things in school, but as an avid reader I became aware of the civil rights movement and slavery (Harriet Tubman was my hero—I was deeply inspired by her courage). In addition to reading, popular culture contributed

to my nascent consciousness. In particular, I recall the deep impact that Stevie Wonder’s song “Living for the City” had on me. I experienced deep moral outrage upon learning how Blacks had been treated, and, having no

idea what other groups had undergone, I came to believe that African Americans were the only oppressed racial/ethnic group in the United States. I knew that I was not Black, so it was impossible for me to think of myself as affected by racism. But I also knew that I was not white, and I struggled with being rendered invisible by the Black/white binary—despite living in a city with deep Mexican roots. In addition to racial oppression, however, I was concerned with the plight of workers and the poor of all colors. Coming from a union family, I was all too familiar with the power that the “contract,” which was negotiated every three years, had over our lives. In addition, I became acquainted with strikes, the rhythms of the hiring hall, and the idiocy of waterfront bosses that we heard about every night from my dad. These events provided a framework in my mind of what it meant to be a worker. Thus it was hardly surprising that when I learned about the United Farm Workers (UFW) and its struggle, it resonated deeply within me. Here at last was a group of Mexicanas/os giving voice to the inchoate feelings and consciousness that were stirring in so many of us. Not only did the UFW announce our presence to the world, but it mobilized around a series of issues that most poor and working-class people could readily identity with. When I was young, I had a very romantic vision of the UFW. I was appalled at the conditions that Mexicana/o field workers labored and lived under, but I was proud of this seemingly organic and charismatic form of Mexican American resistance. Although I sensed that Mexicans had long been subordinated in California, before I learned of

the UFW I knew of no instance of collective resistance and/or struggle. Accordingly, my impression was not only that we were invisible but that we lacked the ability to mobilize and fight for our rights. Maybe we really were the “dumb Mexicans” that everyone said. Not surprisingly, I took the UFW struggle, as perhaps one of the most profound instances of Chicana/o resistance, to heart, and explored it more closely in my dissertation.’ One of the

things I learned from that project, which compared how two Chicana/o communities mobilized around environmental issues, was how deeply anticommunist the UFW was. Yet I also knew that many people considered the

RACE AND POLITICAL ACTIVISM / 419

UFW to be “radical.” This led me to question the term. What is radical? Who is a radical? If nothing else, I have learned that radical is a relative term. While the Chicana/o movement was indeed radical, there was tremendous diversity within it, with some groups assuming far more conservative positions than others. Further, it struck me that much of the scholarship and teaching of el movimiento centered on a few themes and groups, such as the

UFW, the Brown Berets, La Raza Unida Party, New Mexican land-grant struggles, and the Crusade for Justice.* Though this work was of tremendous importance and had a great impact, I knew that it was not complete, as my own experience at the Strategy Center suggested otherwise.

I wished to study the Chicana/o left for this project because I was intrigued by this missing piece of history and was keen to learn how such organizations handled race and class. As I began the research for this book, however, I quickly became immersed in a larger set of racial/ethnic rela-

tionships. I realized that I could not grasp the Chicana/o left without addressing the Black Panther Party. The Black Panther Party loomed large in the national, including Chicana/o, consciousness, and it seemed to me that in addition to inspiring other peoples of color it had created the necessary political space for the development of a Third World Left. This could not be ignored. Thus I found myself having come full circle and needing to explore

the very issues I had first become aware of as a child regarding the interconnectedness of racial meanings and structures. Accordingly, I decided that

the project needed to be comparative so that I could examine the racial dynamics associated with these radical groups, as well as the relationships between them. Several questions are at the heart of this book. They come from my personal experiences, the empirical research I conducted for this project, and larger debates within the literature. My primary concern was to examine the extent to which differential racialization leads to distinct forms of radical politics. Scholars have long noted that wherever domination exists, resistance will follow. Often resistance is invisible to all but the participants themselves, but at other times it evolves into a broad-based opposition. This book examines one moment when “revolution was in the air,” engendering extremely public and overt forms of resistance, and thus offers an exceptional opportunity to explore the extent to which resistance is shaped by domination.” To adequately explore this question, however, I needed to analyze how and why various populations of color are racialized in distinct kinds of ways. What are the processes of differential racialization, and what do they look like on the ground? To what extent are these processes shaped by racial dynamics and class relations, and how are these two factors linked?

20 / RACE, CLASS, AND ACTIVISM

Finally, assuming that different peoples of color are racialized in different ways, what does this mean for the larger racial landscape? In particular, how do these processes translate into racial positions and hierarchies, and how do they change over time? COMPARATIVE RESEARCH: TALKING TO EACH OTHER Although comparative research within ethnic studies is hardly new, scholars have only recently begun seriously theorizing differences and relation-

ships between various racial/ethnic groups. When ethnic studies first became a formal discipline in the early 1970s, each racial/ethnic group, including African Americans, American Indians, Asian Americans, and Chicanas/os and Latinas/os, operated from a largely bipolar racial approach centered on whites. In other words, the experience of, say, Asian Americans,

was studied relative to the dominant white population. This meant both exploring how white society contributed to the subordination of Asian Americans and documenting various outcomes and indicators—educational, social, health related, and political—relative to whites.° From a historical perspective, this approach is understandable given that whites were considered the norm. Thirty years later the struggle for ethnic studies continues at the institutional level, but the intellectual content and focus of the discipline have changed considerably.’ While the initial focus of ethnic studies was corrective, challenging previous racist assumptions and scholarship,* ethnic studies scholars have begun engaging each other in new ways. Researchers have come to appreciate that power relations, particularly racial and class dynamics, cannot be understood in a bipolar framework. Accordingly, there has been a growing effort to develop alternative approaches that capture the complexity of how race and class work in the United States. One catalyst in the development of new strategies to the study of race and ethnicity came from the humanities. Heavily influenced by theoretical developments in literature, social scientists, including historians, began in the 1980s to conceptualize race and racial/ethnic groups not as given and natural but as socially constructed. To say that race is a social construction simply means that the idea of race has no real biological significance and is largely the product of human social systems. This does not imply that race is not “real” or a powerful force shaping our lives. But by recognizing it as the product of human activities and imagination, we can shift the focus of

our inquiry to questions of process: How are racial/ethnic groups constructed? What are the boundaries for inclusion and exclusion, and how do

RACE AND POLITICAL ACTIVISM / 24

they shift over time? How do groups and individuals challenge and (re)produce processes of racialization? By asking such questions scholars began to realize that individual groups could not be understood in isolation. Whereas before the emphasis had been on whites, researchers began looking increasingly to other groups of color in order to sort out the complex processes and meanings that produce racial dynamics and patterns.’ The work of historians has been especially helpful to me in developing a comparative approach. In Racial Fault Lines, Tomas Almaguer showed not only how white supremacy worked to dominate all people of color historically in California but also how each group fared differently. He illuminated the particular meanings associated with various racial/ethnic groups, as well as the economic resources and/or opportunities they presented to white aspirations. This text was critical in forcing a reconsideration of the history of particular places and in insisting that racial positions are shaped by both discursive meanings and economic structures. Building on this work was Neil Foley’s The White Scourge, which focuses on the central Texas cotton belt and analyzes how the racial meanings and attitudes associated with poor whites, Mexicans, and Blacks translated into particular economic out-

comes, as well as how they played off each other. Thus the meanings attached to poor whites could not be understood outside the meanings and economic purpose embodied by Mexican workers. The political scientist Claire Kim has sought to clarify this growing body of literature by developing a model to explain complex racial hierarchies. She argues that the racial position of “intermediary” or ambiguous minorities, such as Asian Americans, can be ascertained only through a process of triangulation. That is, it can be understood only relative to whites, as the universal dominant, and Blacks, as the universal subordinate. She conceptualizes the racial landscape as a field in which various groups have fluid but distinct positions.”

This work has been invaluable in my efforts to build a comparative framework to explain the distinct forms of activism that developed among the Third World Left. But before launching into that discussion, I would like to take a step back and say a few words about race itself.

RACE AND RACIAL IDEOLOGY

Having established that race is a social construct, we can define it more specifically as an ideology that functions to separate the human population

into various groups based on supposedly significant biological features, including skin color, hair texture, and eye structure. Although many of us

22 / RACE, CLASS, AND ACTIVISM

were taught about race in school (I recall learning about Caucasians, Mongoloids, and Negroids and wondering where | fit in), racial groups and ideology are fairly recent developments. Humans have always found ways to distinguish ourselves, but only within the last five hundred years or so have we created the notion of inherent biological difference. The problem with the idea of race is that the closer one looks, the less viable the concept is. Numerous writers have demonstrated that there is more biological diversity within any given racial group than between racial groups. And when one examines how societies interpret these biological “tacts,” especially with regard to categorizing people, the contradictions mount. Our historical practice, for example, of categorizing as Black any person with as little as one drop of “Black” blood suggests that more is at work than rational scientific practice. Moreover, the fact that some people who are categorized as “nonwhite” but appear to be white can at times “pass” in order to access greater opportunities suggests the complex ways racial ideology is constructed and employed toward particular ends." Because of such manipulations race is best understood as a relationship of power. The idea of racial groups and race itself is rooted in attempts to assert

control over particular populations in order to enhance the position and well-being of others. The idea of race essentially developed as an ideology in conjunction with imperialism and colonization. A justification was needed

to help rationalize taking over other countries and peoples, whether by usurping their resources, appropriating them as colonies, or enslaving them. The notion of biological difference and, more specifically, the corollaries of biological inferiority and superiority gave conquering forces ideological tools to dehumanize their victims and legitimize their actions.'* That racial ideologies are still with us, despite a radically different global political economy, not only indicates the longevity and deeply entrenched nature of such ideologies but also suggests that they are still useful in shaping contemporary power relations. As we go about creating our world as humans, we cannot help drawing upon prevailing ideologies in the production of everyday life. This occurs

both consciously and unconsciously. Hegemonic ideologies, or what Gramsci calls “common sense,” are ideologies that become so widespread

and accepted that they not only become naturalized but determine the boundaries of acceptable thought.’ Appreciating hegemonic ideologies is necessary for understanding how race works in the contemporary United States, as they help explain why racial inequality persists in a society that advocates equality and has made some forms of discrimination illegal. This is not to deny that, as George Lipsitz has pointed out, discriminatory poli-

RACE AND POLITICAL ACTIVISM / 23

cies and practices that accrue to the benefit of whites exist and play a role in

perpetuating inequality. But it is meant to stress that unless individuals develop an explicitly antiracist consciousness, they will inevitably reflect and act upon hegemonic racial ideologies, which, in turn, reproduce structures of inequality." Although I have defined race as an ideology, it is important to appreciate its material dimensions as well. Race is composed of both ideological and material components that are manifest in the creation of structures, institutions, and practices. One example of how racialized discourses and structures work together to produce racial inequality is that of urban housing markets, particularly housing segregation and property values. Urban housing markets, which are considered to be free markets, produce highly skewed and racialized outcomes that can be seen in the urban landscape. It is well known that U.S. cities are highly segregated, particularly in terms of Blacks and whites. Many whites do not wish to live in Black communities, and while

many will accept Black neighbors, Black neighborhoods are a different story.’ The widespread nature of this pattern reflects pervasive and deeply held prejudices that translate into real material structures: segregated cities. Segregation, in turn, translates into real material disparities that perpetuate inequalities between Blacks and whites and further reinforce racist ideologies. For instance, Black property is less desirable and therefore is worth less than white property. This fact has enormous implications for the distribution of wealth and resources. Because real estate is the basis of most individual wealth in the United States (including intergenerational transfers of wealth), white property owners benefit from the devalued nature of Black property in the form of higher property values and greater wealth.'° But the white community benefits as well in the form of enhanced resources, such as better schools. Urban segregation and inequality are predicated on racial ideologies, or “common sense,” that is enacted by millions of people every day, resulting in the sedimentation of racial inequality in the physical environment. Yet although Blacks are clearly disadvantaged, the majority of whites rarely consider their greater wealth to result from any sort of privilege; instead, they assert that it is entirely due to their own industriousness.

Differential Racialization and Racial Hierarchies

Differential Racialization As a geographer I am keenly interested in how racism plays out across various landscapes. In different places and times and

at various scales, particular groups may be subordinate, dominant, or in some intermediate position. Two ideas in particular can help us understand how race varies over time and space: differential racialization and racial hier-

24 / RACE, CLASS, AND ACTIVISM

archies. Differential racialization refers to the fact that different groups are racialized in distinct kind of ways. What this means is that a particular set of racial meanings are attached to different racial/ethnic groups that not only affect their class position and racial standing but also are a function of it. Thus there is a dialectic between the discursive and the material. Today, the word racism is used so frequently, particularly among progressives and the left, that I sometimes feel there is a loss of nuance. While racism is a powerful word, and many people correctly understand it to mean the production of inequality between various racial/ethnic groups, I am frustrated that there is insufficient attention directed to how different communities of color may experience racism. People of color are not homogenous and do not experience the same types of racialization. The concept of differential racialization can help us understand these subtle and not-sosubtle differences. The process by which a people becomes racialized is highly specific. The particulars of history, geography, the needs of capital, and the attributes of various populations all contribute to it. In analyzing contemporary forms of differential racialization, one must always consider a group’s history of incorporation and economic integration. Under what conditions and cir-

cumstances did they become part of this country—undergoing what Espiritu calls “differential inclusion” ?'’ Were they already here and conquered by Anglo Americans, as in the case of indigenous people or Mexicans in the Southwest? Were they brought here in chains as forced labor? Or did they come as immigrants in search of better opportunities? In each case, we need to determine the political economic forces that led to the initial contact. Was a particular fraction of capital in need of workers? If so, what was the structure and culture of the existing working class? Or was capital in need of new workers because the existing ones were organizing or dying due to

inhumane conditions? Alternatively, it could be that the state and capital wished to expand and acquire the land and resources of another people. Each scenario can engender a distinct racialization process, depending upon the political economic specifics and available racial ideologies.

Another factor in differential racialization is the “cultural distance” between the groups in question. Almaguer’s study of California found that

in the nineteenth century whites were far more amenable to accepting Mexicans than to accepting Indians and the Chinese: both of the latter were considered to be heathen savages, whereas Mexicans, though problematic,

could be included on the margins of society due to their Christian background, Spanish tongue (a European language), and racial diversity and whites’ general familiarity with Mexican and Spanish culture, given its long

RACE AND POLITICAL ACTIVISM / 25

presence in the region.’ Such readings have enormous implications for a group’s relationship to the nation. If, drawing on Benedict Anderson, we define a nation as an “imagined political community,” it becomes clear that the United States as a nation has historically been defined in explicitly racial terms.'” In particular, citizenship has been reserved for those categorized as white. Not only did such practices supposedly protect the racial purity of the

nation but, perhaps more importantly, as Anthony Marx has argued, the subordination of nonwhites has allowed the state to appease and consolidate potentially marginalized and fragmented whites. The somewhat arbitrary nature of acceptance into the nation in turn profoundly affects the racial-

ization process. If the dominant group is willing to accept the minority group as part of the nation, this bodes well for a relatively smooth incorporation process and works against the most dehumanizing forms of racialization. If, on the other hand, the dominant population sees the minority group as objectionable or a threat to the nation—despite the needs of capital—then the group in question is likely to be highly marginalized and to experience a brutal form of racialization. In short, differential racialization affects how each group is treated legally, socially, and economically and can even determine life and death.

Racial Hierarchies A racial hierarchy is a specific configuration of power relations in a given place and time based on racial ideology. Racial hierarchies are the mapping of power relations: Who is on top? Who is on the bottom? Who is in between? And how are racial groups related? By connecting the lines between various locations and nodes we can ascertain the status of various racial/ethnic groups and their positioning relative to each other. Racial hierarchies are composed of several elements, including local demographics, history, and economic structures, as well as national racial narratives. They can be relatively simple, such as the hierarchy of whites over Blacks in the South during slavery, which featured clear dominant and subordinate groups whose inequality became increasingly codified over time.”° More complex racial hierarchies existed in many eastern industrial cities during the late 1800s, when, in addition to Blacks and whites, there were a number of “not quite white” groups, including Jews, the Irish, and Italians.*! The same was also true for California starting at the time of Spanish con-

quest, when a racially mixed group of conquerors and settlers—who brought with them their own complex racial order—confronted the indigenous population. The resulting hierarchy was further complicated by the

arrival of various Asian peoples and later African Americans. Because California has historically been so racially diverse, with populations that

26 / RACE, CLASS, AND ACTIVISM

could not readily pass into whiteness, it remains an exceptional place to study complex racial hierarchies. Racial hierarchies are not static: they respond to both geographic and historical processes. One example of the transformative capacity of racial hierarchies is the case of Chinese and Japanese Americans in California. In the

late 1800s and early 1900s, Asian Americans were arguably the most despised racial/ethnic group in the state. They were regularly lynched, occasionally massacred, excluded from large sectors of the economy, prohibited from living among and marrying whites, denied citizenship, and eventually

banned from immigrating. Although California was home to a large and varied population of color, Asians received the brunt of racial animosity. This is in dramatic contrast to today, when Chinese and Japanese Americans are no longer the most detested racial/ethnic group. They have experienced

not only economic mobility but improvement in their racial position. In some circles, Asian Americans are almost considered “honorary whites.”** A

century ago it was inconceivable that the hostility directed toward Asian Americans could ever change—but it did. Thus, whenever we speak of racial hierarchies, we must be sensitive to issues of temporality.

Regional Racial Hierarchies. The case of Chinese and Japanese Americans also illustrates the importance of spatiality to racial hierarchies. Racial hierarchies exist at multiple geographic scales.*’ We can discern the general contours of a global racial hierarchy in the admittedly crude division between the “First” and “Third” Worlds, which correspond roughly to patterns of colonization. But racial hierarchies also exist at smaller scales. For example, while Asian Americans were under attack in California, the national racial hierarchy was structured along largely Black/white lines. The influence of the national racial narratives could be seen in the fact that many of the discriminatory tools and techniques directed against Asian Americans had been originally deployed against Blacks. On the other hand, regional racial hier-

archies can also affect the national one, as when problematic “regional minorities” become national threats. While we must always be cognizant of national racial narratives, studying racial hierarchies solely at the national level poses several problems. In particular, it precludes a fine-grained analysis of the relationship between economic structures and racial ideologies because economic processes get worked out and shape individual lives primarily at the regional and local levels. Although national economic patterns and policies certainly matter,

the importance of regional variation should not be underestimated. One need only reflect on the historical importance of slavery to the South, indus-

RACE AND POLITICAL ACTIVISM / 27

trialization to the Northeast, and mining to the West to appreciate the significance of regional economies.** Hence it is primarily at the regional or local scale that more nuanced discussions of the relationship between race and class emerge. Such scaled analyses allow us to see the intersection of labor markets, class relations, and racial ideologies—all of which contribute to racial hierarchies. These hierarchies, in turn, can have profound implications for the nature of regions themselves. Class and Racial Hierarchies. Let us look more closely at how local labor markets are racialized, as this is key to the creation of racial hierarchies. Labor markets are significant not only because are they fundamental to the process of class formation but because they are primarily regional and local phenomena. Most people commute to home and work on a daily basis, so this activity sets the potential geographic parameters of labor markets and divisions of labor. The exact nature of local labor markets is determined by the needs of capital, the nature of the commodity or service, state policies, the available labor pool, and racial and gender ideologies. These last two factors are instrumental in suggesting which groups will occupy what positions.” It is at the intersection of economic processes and racial discourses that racialized class structures and divisions of labor are created. The intersection of labor markets and racial ideologies can have profound consequences reaching far beyond the local labor market. Consider, for example, the intimate relationship between Mexicans and farm work, which

has been central to the racialization of many Latinas/os in the western United States. Over time California farmers decided that Mexicans were an ideal workforce and generated a whole set of stereotypes and ideologies to

justify their intensive exploitation. For example, it was believed that Mexicans, in addition to tolerating stoop labor better than whites (because they were relatively short and thus would not have to bend down as far as a white person would), would work long hours for cheap wages without complaining, would have no ambitions (or capabilities) beyond farm work, and would “disappear” when the harvest was over. They were thought to be content with illiteracy and dirty living conditions. These attributes, it was felt, rendered them an efficient and pliable workforce ideally suited to the shifting conditions of California agriculture.*° Such ideas, regardless of their accuracy, developed into a racial ideology that justified the treatment of

farmworkers and was extrapolated to many Mexicans and Mexican Americans throughout the Southwest, regardless of their actual class positions. Thus we can see the dialectic nature of racial ideologies and processes of class formation.

28 / RACE, CLASS, AND ACTIVISM

Today, Mexican labor has expanded far beyond California’s fields. There is even a growing professional class, yet these stereotypes and images linger.

We can see their staying power in the fact that the vast majority of Mexicanas/os are located in the working class, receive inferior educational opportunities, are poor, and continue to face discrimination in many arenas. In effect, these ideologies, combined with immigration flows and a postindustrial economy, produce highly racialized outcomes. Care must be taken not to suggest that such is the plight of all Latinas/os. I myself, for example, am a professor at a research university. Yet despite a radically different class position I am affected by prevailing racial ideologies, as some students resist seeing me as a legitimate professor. Not infrequently I am asked, “Are you a real professor?” For some, it is difficult to believe that a Mexican American woman can have a position of authority. Certainly, the racial hierarchy has not dictated my economic position, but it does inform my daily experience.” | have suggested that racial hierarchies change over time. | now wish to consider how that happens and the role of crisis in change. Crises, which are endemic to capitalism, can be defined as moments when the prevailing formation can no longer reproduce itself. At such times racism may be used to help “work out” the crisis, with profound implications for the racial hierarchy.** In such instances racial hierarchies not only become more vivid but also can be transformed. Typically, during a crisis, as large numbers of people are being dislocated and are feeling pain and uncertainty, so-called leaders may channel the resulting anxiety into hostility toward those at the bottom of the racial hierarchy. Scapegoating is nothing new and can fall on any marginalized group depending upon how the lines of difference are drawn. In California, both today and in the past, they are primarily drawn racially.

As Omi and Winant have pointed out, race remains a central organizing principle in U.S. society.’ Scapegoating a racial/ethnic group serves to subordinate that group, but it also contains the possibility of movement for others. Groups that are not held responsible for the current crisis may attain an improved status and position within the racial hierarchy. One recent example of a change in the racial hierarchy is California’s Proposition 187. In the late 1980s California entered a deep and painful recession, leading then-Governor Pete Wilson to make immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants, the centerpiece of his 1994 re-election campaign. He argued that California could not afford the cost of undocumented immigrants and that they were responsible for the recession. This

resulted in tremendous public hostility toward immigrants, particularly

Latina/o immigrants and by extension those who looked Latina/o. According to the immigrant-rights activist Susan Alva, “The immigration

RACE AND POLITICAL ACTIVISM / 29

issue, particularly in California, has very much turned into a Latino issue.” This sentiment eventually culminated in Proposition 187, which sought to ban undocumented persons from a whole range of social, educational, and health services.”

What was significant about this episode was not that it demonized Latinas/os but that it provided a fleeting opportunity for both Blacks and Asian Americans to improve their racial position. Conservative pundits catered to the African American vote, emphasizing that Blacks were negatively affected by immigration and that they were citizens and thus included in the body politic. In short, part of the politics of Proposition 187 was about giving Black people a chance to be “Americans,” something they have systematically been denied because of the extent to which the nation has been defined as white.”

For Asian Americans the situation was somewhat different. Proposition 187 ostensibly targeted all undocumented persons and thus would have certainly affected the Asian/Pacific Islander population. Various progressive Asian groups knew this and saw the occasion as a valuable opportunity to ally with Latinas/os. In the public’s mind, however, Proposition 187 was not about Asian/Pacific Islanders. It was a referendum on the Latinization of California. In fact, both Asian Americans and Blacks voted for the initiative in fairly highly numbers: 57 percent and 56 percent, respectively (compared to 31 percent of Latino voters). In short, Proposition 187 reworked the racial hierarchy insofar as it exerted downward pressure on Latinas/os’ position while offering a temporary reprieve to Blacks, who were suddenly part of the nation, and to Asian/Pacific Islanders, who were rendered a much less problematic immigrant population.”* To summarize, the racial hierarchy is an ever-changing landscape composed of distinct racial positions. Racial hierarchies are shaped by local demographics, regional economies, local history, and national racial narratives. Differential racialization is key to the production of racial hierarchies, as it produces a variety of racial meanings, all of which are in continuous engagement with each other. Finally, although the racial hierarchy is in a continual state of flux, moments of crisis are pivotal to its transformation. However, racial hierarchies may also be transformed from the bottom up by activism. RACE AND POLITICAL ACTIVISM To Act or Not to Act Because racial hierarchies are predicated on inequality and domination, they

are also sites of resistance and contestation. People struggle not only to

30 / RACE, CLASS, AND ACTIVISM

change their own positions but in some cases to dismantle the structures of inequality that oppress others as well as themselves. Within ethnic studies, much energy has been directed at unearthing the rich but often obscured histories of racial resistance. Such instances of political awareness and mobilization beckon researchers, not only because we wish to uncover submerged histories but because such accounts provide historical linkages with more contemporary forms of activism.” While this work has been invaluable, we must not give the impression that all people of color are poised for revolution.** Only a small number of people take the step from private individual to public actor and become

activists. For various reasons, most persons choose not to act publicly, regardless of how exploited or oppressed they may be. This does not mean they are content with the injustice; it means only that they are not willing or able to openly challenge it. Fear is one of the most powerful forces that prevents people from acting. Depending upon how repressive the situation is, people may fear, with good cause, retribution in the form of unemployment, the denial of basic services and needs, the destruction of their property, and, in some instances, violence and death.’ Another factor is the pervasive nature of hegemonic discourses and the internalization of self-hate. It never fails to amaze me how many people, in the face of grave injustice and inequality, will justify their marginalized positions by drawing upon “common sense.” They, in effect, buy into dominant discourses that have been deployed by more powerful actors to justify what may be an immoral set of arrangements, often by naturalizing the conditions of the most subordinated.*° Finally, many people choose not to act because of apathy and a limited faith in their ability to effect change. Disillusion and cynicism are widespread throughout U.S. society, and people of color are no exception. It takes an enormous amount of time, energy, hope, and creativity to initiate change from below.”

Consequently, some writers, such as Gregory Rodriguez, have questioned the significance of social movements and political activism, pointing

out that the vast majority never participate in them: “The Mexican American experience has largely been interpreted through the actions of advocacy groups. No matter that surveys find that Mexican Americans are much less likely to join civic groups than are, say, Anglos, most writers still adhere to the rule that the collective, organized minority activity is the only minority behavior that’s worth writing about. .. . With few exceptions, the history of an organized few has obscured the more revealing story of the lives and daily struggles of the unorganized mass of people.”** Rodriguez’s

point, though true enough, reflects a limited understanding of how social

RACE AND POLITICAL ACTIVISM / 31

change occurs. Among dominated communities, fundamental change does not occur through the ballot box, or even through mass uprisings, although both can play important roles. Rather, it centers on producing a shift in consciousness— an alternative vision of what the world might look like, an expanded sense of personal efficacy (often called empowerment), and a clear set of demands—and on systematically mobilizing. Such changes constitute the beginnings of a movement. Creating these changes, or at least the conditions for them, is the job of the political activist and organizer.

Changing Racial Hierarchies through Racial Projects

Over the course of history, millions have initiated countless attempts to create a more socially just society. Some have done so out of anger and a refusal to be dehumanized, others have responded to the suffering of fellow human beings, and still others have been motivated by an awareness that not to act is to support a particular social formation. Just as motivation may vary, so do the content and form of resistance itself. Some individuals have acted alone, some have banded together in acts of rebellion, and some have

built elaborate organizations and movements to help them achieve freedom, liberation, and equality.”’ The Third World Left, which existed at the intersection of the New Left

and the more nationalist movements embedded within communities of color, constituted a social movement. The sociologist James Jasper defines a social movement as “conscious, concerted, and relatively sustained efforts by organized groups of ordinary people (as opposed to, say, political parties, the military, or industrial trade groups) to change some aspect of their society by using extrainstitutional means.”*” The Third World Left sought to dismantle the racial hierarchy and alter the class structure of U.S. society,

particularly as it related to people of color. It engaged in what Howard Winant calls a racial project: that is, an “interpretation, representation or explanation of racial dynamics and an effort to organize and distribute resources along particular racial lines.”*' In the case of the Third World Left, this project sought to end numerous discriminatory practices that were part of the racial hierarchy and class structure. Activists targeted such issues as police abuse, unfair treatment of immigrants, exclusion from social services, the exploitation of workers of color, U.S. domination of Third World countries, and the general marginalization of communities of color. They did this by challenging policies, withholding cooperation, mobilizing large demonstrations, educating and politicizing others to take up the struggle, and, in some cases, arming themselves. Ultimately, their hope was to create a radi-

cally different society, which would feature a redistribution of economic

32 / RACE, CLASS, AND ACTIVISM

and political opportunities along both class and racial lines in the United States.

The extent to which activists or organizations are successful is decided not only by their skills and abilities but also by the forces arrayed against them. While there will always be resistance to oppressive conditions, the precise nature and content of that resistance are often determined by history. The alternatives people envision, the methods they employ, and the

way they mobilize all occur within a particular historical and cultural milieu. Thus, during the Cold War, antiracist activists were able to mount only relatively small challenges to the racial formation, given the pressure to conform and be patriotic.** The 1960s and 1970s presented a very different set of possibilities. George Katsiaficas has described this era as a “world historical moment” when seemingly the entire world was rising up and challenging imperialism, economic and racial inequality, and societal norms and conventions.*” Hence the boundaries of what seemed possible were greatly expanded, and people engaged in behavior and practices that may sometimes be difficult to understand today. But, for many, revolution was in the air, and within this context the Third World Left was born. The following quote from a New Left activist describes how many perceived the world at the moment. Every left idea is winning right now. That’s very important for people to understand about not rewriting history. . . . King is moving on the war |and| towards the Black working class and trying to build a multiracial movement of the poor. The Vietnamese are winning in Vietnam. The Panthers are saying armed struggle. SDS chapters that used to have a hundred people now have five hundred people in them. There was the Harvard strike—1967—68— everyone thought that a world revolution was happening and there was no limit to what was possible at that point. All of Latin America, all of Asia, all of Africa was going communist, the protests in France, the French workers’ strike. So we were part of this world historical moment.**

Given that so much was going on, the task of analyzing the political activism and social movements of the 1960s and 1970s presents a challenge. Not only is it difficult to distinguish between various political tendencies,

but establishing causality or priority in terms of race and class is no easy task. Was the Third World Left equally committed to struggles against racism and class exploitation, or did it tend to privilege one over the other? How do we untangle and make sense of these multiple forces? Is it accurate to depict activists as engaged in a racial project? Or should such activism be more appropriately categorized as anticapitalist? Although I argue that the

RACE AND POLITICAL ACTIVISM / 33

Third World Left was simultaneously about race and class, I locate this activism in racial terms, a decision some may disagree with. Stuart Hall’s work, in particular, has furthered my conceptualization of such activism by

pointing out the extent to which class may be lived through race (and I would add, gender): “Race performs a double function. It is . . . the principal modality in which the black members of that class ‘live,’ experience, make sense of and thus come to a consciousness of their structured subordination. It is through the modality of race that blacks comprehend, handle, and then begin to resist the exploitation which is an objective feature of the class sit-

uation.”* Hall indicates that, especially for the working class in a highly racialized society, one’s class position is largely experienced through race. This is meant, not to reduce class to race, but to show the extent to which they intersect in shaping the everyday life of the poor and colored and to suggest the important work that race does in creating a particular social formation. I find this analysis compelling insofar as activists in the Third World Left did in fact organize along racial lines. Although there were many multira-

cial (or multinational, as they were called) groups, all the organizations | studied were composed overwhelmingly of a single racial/ethnic group and focused their efforts on that community, in particular the poor, marginalized, and lower-class members of that community. Thus, although activists developed elaborate class ideologies and were anticapitalist, their frame of reference was always their racial/ethnic position. It was through race that they came “to a consciousness of their structured subordination.” Indeed, the emphasis on race was what distinguished the Third World Left from the larger New Left. Numerous individuals departed from the New Left precisely because of their discomfort with its approach to race. The Third World

Left gave expression to activists’ longing and need to articulate a politics centered on their understanding of the racialized nature of capitalism. Clarifying the nature of this relationship is crucial because I argue in this book that the distinctive nature of each organization’s politics is linked to the larger process of racialization and the racial position of each racial/ ethnic group. Without being too reductionist, | hope to show throughout the remainder of the book the extent to which the unique concerns, ideology, and cultures of the various organizations were produced by a particular racial and economic experience, as well as by a selective borrowing from other movements and places, ranging from Cuba and Vietnam on the international scene to the ghettos, barrios, and Nikkei clusters of Los Angeles at the local level.

two Differential Racialization in Southern California

Historical accounts of contemporary Southern California often emphasize World War II because during this time the region reinvented itself and its contemporary foundations were established, including a major restructuring of the regional racial hierarchy.’ Accordingly, it was the racial and class structure of the post-World War II era that Third World Left activists grew up in. This same formation led to the differential racialization of African, Mexican, and Japanese Americans that activists ultimately rebelled against. My goal in this chapter is to consider how the demographic, political, economic, and social changes initiated by World War II affected communities of color and thus provided the backdrop to activists’ lives. WORLD WAR II IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Five key shifts associated with World War II were critical to refashioning Southern California’s racial hierarchy and its concomitant distribution of economic and political opportunities. First, the war triggered a tremendous population explosion, which in turn altered the racial/ethnic composition of the region. Second, population growth was coupled with massive economic development, particularly in the military and aerospace industries, which provided unprecedented employment opportunities for communities of color. Third, population and industrial expansion together produced a new spatial structure—urban sprawl—with important implications for interethnic relations. Fourth, in one of the greatest mass violations of civil rights, Japanese Americans were placed in concentration camps and returned to

Los Angeles not only impoverished but with traumatic memories that would play themselves out in subsequent generations. Finally, African and Mexican American veterans returned from the war with an enhanced sense of empowerment and a commitment to fight against racial inequality. 34

DIFFERENTIAL RACIALIZATION IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA / 35

Table 1 = Population increase in Los Angeles County, 1920-1970

Year Population Total % Increase

1920 936,455 — 1930 2,208,492 290

1940 2,/85,643 126 1950 4,151,687 149 1960 6,038,771 154 1970 7,041,980 165 souRCE: B. Marchand, The Emergence of Los Angeles: Popula-

tion and Housing in the City of Dreams, 1940-70 (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986), 70.

Demographic, Economic, and Spatial Changes Although Southern California’s prosperity has always been based on population growth and land speculation, World War I brought a period of unparalleled expansion.” Los Angeles County’s population quadrupled from less than one million in 1920 to over four million by 1950. Table 1 charts the county’s growth before and after the war. Although all decades were characterized by phenomenal growth, the greatest increase occurred in the two decades after the war, as literally millions of people came to the region seeking jobs and the California lifestyle. While the majority of World War II immigrants were white, there was also a large influx of African Americans, thus bolstering the small but long-standing Black community. In 1920 there were 15,579 Blacks in Los Angeles, whereas by 1950 there were 170,880.” Although this influx was relatively small given the overall population, it not only resulted in a sizable Black community but marked a transition in Los Angeles’s racial hierarchy. Before then,

Black Angelenos had often been considered better off than other urban African Americans, primarily because there were other, larger, nonwhite groups targeted by white racism. So, for instance, in Southern California, American Indians were lynched and sold into slavery, Chinese American communities were destroyed by race riots, Japanese Americans were terrorized by

white vigilantes, and Mexican Americans were subject to intense police harassment.* This is not to deny the discrimination that Black Angelenos faced but rather to suggest the distinctive nature of Los Angeles’s racial hierarchy. In Los Angeles, not only were there other more reviled populations of

36 / RACE, CLASS, AND ACTIVISM

color, but there were arguably too few African Americans to pose a threat, eco-

nomic or otherwise, to white Angelenos. Consequently, the 1920s are often referred to as the “Golden Age” of Black Los Angeles. Unfortunately, this was

not to last. The increase in African Americans, as well as the decline of American Indians, transformed the racial hierarchy, and over time Black Angelenos found themselves sharing the plight of other urban Blacks.

Regardless of whether they were “Okies,” southern Blacks, or urban whites, Southern California transplants came for similar reasons: jobs, the climate, and hopes for a better life. The demand for workers during World War II was such that not only were white arrivals absorbed into the workforce, but, with the notable exception of Japanese Americans (who were evacuated), people of color encountered unprecedented opportunities — although federal intervention was required to end exclusions against Black workers. Between 1940 and 1943, employment in Los Angeles County grew

from approximately 900,000 to 1,450,000, a 60 percent increase.’ While most of this growth was in defense, defense was not the only industry that propelled the region into becoming a manufacturing powerhouse. Before the war, city boosters attracted industry via the “branch plant” strategy, which encouraged major industries to establish a West Coast operation. As a result of these efforts, auto and ancillary industries, such as rubber and glass, invested heavily in the Los Angeles region in the thirties.° Together, this array of Fordist industry, including auto, shipping, aircraft, and later aerospace, created singular prosperity, especially for whites. Concomitant with such dramatic changes in population and industry was

the transformation of the region’s geography. While suburbs have a long history in the United States, Southern California recast suburbanization as the new urban model. From early on, elite whites created suburbs and residential enclaves to insulate themselves from immigrants, the working class, and people of color. But beginning in the 1920s the region distinguished itself by building suburban housing for the working class. Becky Nicolaides has pointed out that there was actually a diversity of working-class suburbs, including many “homemade” units for poorer residents.’ Nonetheless, they were still relatively segregated by race and class, so that by the 1950s early Mexican suburbs had become barrios that endure to this day. Given such a history of segregation, it was not surprising that as whites arrived in the 1940s they too sought to distance themselves from nonwhites: People of color were simply not part of the Southern California dream that millions of whites wished to buy into. Although such patterns reflected individual preferences, the state also played a crucial role in promoting racially exclusive communities. Because Los Angeles was a center of wartime activity, the state needed to ensure sufficient shelter, as a housing shortage could poten-

DIFFERENTIAL RACIALIZATION IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA / 37

|a}\ \\=AJV:~ a

Salen al NG _/ : ———

San at Valley |=. | @ Canoga | \